Capture of Major Yate

[seaforths]

Trajan - great map showing some good details. I haven't posted all of the map I have which shows the German 6th Division advancing in the rear of the 7th and 8th at around 7p.m.

I don't have the orbat for 6th but it might be worth finding and looking at - but as SS posted earlier in German here I have in English for August 1914:

[seaforths]

he appears as killed TIMES 3.Sep from a report 1 Sep 1914

unofficially POW reported 20 and 21st Sep/

HM the Q visits his grave report 4 Nov 2004.

Cannot find VC citation LG though.

Thanks Grumpy, ties in with casualty reports I have seen. Shows how far behind the admin was on casualties. His wife received a letter from him dated 2 September.

His VC citation is pretty brief:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/28985/supplement/9957

Also supposed to have been MiD in Sir John French's Despatch of 8th October 1914.

Thanks for finding Glen, I can find no record of him being wounded at Le Cateau. Quite badly wounded November 1899 with gunshot wound to the abdomen.

[trajan]

...It might have been the case that the V.C. award came under closer scrutiny later in the war.

Has anyone charted the frequency (month by month/year by year) VC's were awarded in WW1? Or relative numbers the same way according to whether the award was posthumous (the recipient having been killed in the action for which the award was made) or not?

I appreciate that we cannot judge the individual awards or relative degrees of bravery in the relevant actions as the war went on, but it would not surprise me if more were awarded in the early months of WWI, when people thought it would be over by Xmas, than later on, when it was clear it was going to last for some time. What prompts me to ask this question is not simply the Yate case, but I did know a WWII VC holder who won his early in that war and who told me he basically got it for saving his injured batman while under fire! I do not doubt for one second the man's bravery, and he may well have deliberately downplayed the circumstances. But I did get the feeling from how he described the episode that in his case it was not quite as clear a matter of 'do and quite probably die', which seems to account for why so many later WWII (and perhaps WWI?) VC awards were posthumous, the man having been killed in the action for which he was so decorated.

[seaforths]

Interesting points I suspect not just relative to VCs but bravery awards in general. Harder to earn later I suspect has been raised somewhere on the forum as I recall. The VC winners may well have played down their part, out of modesty. However, also worthy of consideration, someone else could equally have, in their recommendation, added a bit more than actually happened.

Yate's VC errors are glaring. As SPOF pointed out he was gazetted 24 November 1914. By this time they would have known he was not wounded (as stated in the citation). There may have been no charge undertaken - were they aware of this? Possibly.

According to another thread on Yate, Bond wrote in his book after the war that there wasn't a charge because they were overran before it could take place. Bond, a POW himself captured in the same action may well have had no input whatsoever into the recommendation for the award...who then? Someone bigging up the action?

Then there is Bond himself. Was he a complete snake in the grass to all his officers? Or did he have an axe to grind regarding Yate? Bond reported Yate's escape to the Camp Commandant as soon as he found out about it - why? When he wrote about Le Cateau after the war, he would by then know he was contradicting the VC citation. Was he still grinding that axe by stating there was no charge? Yate was dead he couldn't contradict him Or, was he telling the truth?

Of course the escape reporting incident might have been because he specifically ordered the officers not to attempt to escape and they were ignoring him. They continued their planning and plotting and attempting. Yate's file is quite a hefty one, particularly with regard to events surrounding his death and further investigations that took place after the war. Bond's input in those files is conspicuous by its absence.

[spof]

From 4 August 1914 - 30 April 1920 there were 633 VCs awarded including 2 Bars (Noel Chevasse and Lt A Martin-Leake who won his first VC in SA in 1902) In the 1939-45 war, thre were 182 awarded including a Bar for Charles Upham from NZ. This obviously reflects the fact that the opposing forces were in much closer contact over the 4 years of WW1.

You can download a list of VC recipients from 1856-1946 + 2 from Korea from TNA for free

[Muerrisch]

I fear I do not agree your "obviously" ....... it might be to you, but not to me!

[trajan]

From 4 August 1914 - 30 April 1920 there were 633 VCs awarded including 2 Bars (Noel Chevasse and Lt A Martin-Leake who won his first VC in SA in 1902) In the 1939-45 war, thre were 182 awarded including a Bar for Charles Upham from NZ. This obviously reflects the fact that the opposing forces were in much closer contact over the 4 years of WW1.

You can download a list of VC recipients from 1856-1946 + 2 from Korea from TNA for free

Thankee kindly!

I fear I do not agree your "obviously" ....... it might be to you, but not to me!

Well said - I think there were enough occasions in WWII (and Korea!) when it was - albeit if for limited periods only - virtually and literally hand to hand fighting: that's how one of my former lecturers got his DSO in Italy!

EDIT: typo!

[seaforths]

I'm reading SPOF's post and thinking that:

In WW1 they were in each other's faces on a daily basis land, sea and air. Whereas WW2 the face to face contact time period was less on land. Given that the WW2 VCs awarded were just short of 200. If the same land contact time had been made over a period of over 4 years, the WW2 VCs would have been similar to or exceeded WW1.

Edit: typo

[spof]

Thanks Seaforths. That is what I tried and failed to mean. In no way was I trying to play down the courage of the men who fought in either war.

[Muerrisch]

This is becoming a digression but in WW II there was continuous air conflict, there was frequent naval conflict, and after Norway and Dunkirk the army were rather busy in N. Africa, then the Far East, then Italy, the NW Europe.

Might we just consider that the criteria were applied ever-increasingly rigorously?

[Another hypothesis that cannot be rejected out of hand is that the armed forces were less brave in WW II].

Perhaps we should stop what I regard as a sterile comparison exercise?

Back to the subject?

[trajan]

Thanks Seaforths. That is what I tried and failed to mean. In no way was I trying to play down the courage of the men who fought in either war.

Same here! I just got the impression from my VC holder that individual acts of heroism like his became - dare I say? - more commonplace as WWII progressed. Personally I very much doubt if I could have done what he did - running to rescue a bloke while being under fire for perhaps the first time in one's life? But talks with my (very reluctant to talk about it) DSO holder rather strengthened the impression that regarding what he did, it was somewhat easier to get a VC in 1939-1940/41 than in 1944 (not that he complained but this impression was somewhat confirmed by another of my lecturers who was in the same theatre).

[trajan]

Back to the subject?

Grumpy, you are on the ball! Yours' came when I was writing... Frequent problem with these threads, going off the main topic!

[seaforths]

This is becoming a digression but in WW II there was continuous air conflict, there was frequent naval conflict, and after Norway and Dunkirk the army were rather busy in N. Africa, then the Far East, then Italy, the NW Europe.

Might we just consider that the criteria were applied ever-increasingly rigorously?

[Another hypothesis that cannot be rejected out of hand is that the armed forces were less brave in WW II].

Perhaps we should stop what I regard as a sterile comparison exercise?

Back to the subject?

Absolutely.

Who then, in the absence of Bond might have recommended Yate for the award? Apologies for posting this in two parts. I had to extract the pages then having 4 pages the file was too large to post. I subsequently had to split it into two parts:

VC Warrants_Part1.pdf

VC Warrants_Part2.pdf

[shippingsteel]

Apart from the weapons, probably the other most telling thing from this photo are the uniforms shown. And this is despite the known vagaries of the orthochromatic film.

I have highlighted below the obviously two-tones visible in the Brandenburg cuffs of the uniform. This shows these men are not wearing the expected feldgrau Feldrock.

All this tells us is that this is not a front-line scene anywhere near the battle, which in itself is not overly important ... BUT it has been made to appear so, which is critical.

Here is a brave and gallant British officer who has not only been captured but now is forced to be part of some staged propaganda photo opportunity, just adding to it all.

Given the circumstances of his death, I wonder what this snapshot of his time in captivity actually does tell us. Did this incident contribute to his mental state and suicide.?

Cheers, S>S

[seaforths]

Yes SS, I believe that the treatment and attention he was receiving from the Germans contributed to his frame of mind and he was compelled to escape before the situation worsened.

I have spent this evening going through the Army Lists of VC recipients. The 1914 list shows the others gazetted (which SPOF attached a few posts earlier) on the same page as Yate also appearing in the 1914 list and all the lists that follow. Yate, however, does not appear in that list. Nor, does he appear in any other subsequent lists as a VC recipient.

[trajan]

... Brandenburg cuffs on a light blue uniform? ...

Apart from the weapons, probably the other most telling thing from this photo are the uniforms shown. And this is despite the known vagaries of the orthochromatic film.

I have highlighted below the obviously two-tones visible in the Brandenburg cuffs of the uniform. This shows these men are not wearing the expected feldgrau Feldrock.

Thanks for checking on that - so light blue tunics, as I suggested earlier?

Trajan

[shippingsteel]

Well yes Trajan, but perhaps you should take a glance back to the OP. Don't know if you're into the 'cryptic crosswords' but I thought I left enough hints there, didn't I.?

Any thoughts on anything that is shown in this photo would be greatly appreciated. (Personally I think there may be clues not just in the arms but also in uniforms)

I was hoping some uniform expert might be able to confirm all this with some 'independent opinion' but nothing has been forthcoming. I didn't want to say too much earlier.

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

Well yes Trajan, but perhaps you should take a glance back to the OP. Don't know if you're into the 'cryptic crosswords' but I thought I left enough hints there, didn't I.?

I was hoping some uniform expert might be able to confirm all this with some 'independent opinion' but nothing has been forthcoming. I didn't want to say too much earlier.

Cheers, S>S

Indeed I saw and read that OP!

I was just pointing out that I had already deduced what the tunic colour probably was and that it wasn't feldgrau... So perhaps a little credit where some credit might seem to be due? If you chose to ignore the suggestion when I made it, then well...

[shippingsteel]

Yes Trajan you get full marks for deduction, so well done.! To help illustrate for others exactly what these guys would have looked like, here is a simple comparison of photos.

In technical terms the uniform shown is the Hellblau Waffenrock for Bayern, and if it looks 'old school' then thats because it really is.! They even have the same rifle and pouches.!

Of course different headwear and without the full kit and pack, but apart from that identical. You can see why they would not be anywhere near the front. Good POW camp guards.?

Cheers, S>S

[Guest]

Well yes Trajan, but perhaps you should take a glance back to the OP. Don't know if you're into the 'cryptic crosswords' but I thought I left enough hints there, didn't I.?

I was hoping some uniform expert might be able to confirm all this with some 'independent opinion' but nothing has been forthcoming. I didn't want to say too much earlier.

Cheers, S>S

Shipping Steel

I have trawled the three other threads on Yate and unless I have missed something no-one appears to have mentioned the eywitness report by Lt Wynne. In a very long typewritten account of the action written by Lt Col Bond (captured that day and also the author of the KOYLI history) to Atkinson, one of the Official Historians he appends the account with a handwritten note:

"the following is quoted from Lt WYNNE's diary from an entry made immediately after he had been taken prisoner: "We were taken into the Yard belonging to the remains of a farm at the cross-roads and placed under a strong guard there. The troops that had captured our position and who now guarded us belonged to four different regiments; the 26th, the 66th, the 72nd and 3rd Guards Regiment"

I thought it worth mentioning as it is very specific about the Regiments guarding them, has decent provenance and (I think) The last of the regiments is not shown on the map annotated with the numbers of the attacking troops.

All the accounts of the action that day are slightly conflicting. The War Diary understandably is light but does report 18 Officers Killed, wounded or missing that day along with 582 ORs. Bond's account in his letter to the OH historian mentions Yate a few times. He concludes:

"A very heavy and accurate fire was directed on the trenches before the end. At 4:20 pm the final rush came. In B Comapnay Major Yate gave the order to meet it with a charge, but the number of men near him able to support it was so small that his desperate call met with practically no response. Major Yate himself with other Officers of his Company, was overpowered and disarmed.

Which is not materially different to his published history on the KOYLI.

I understand your questioning of the uniforms and the mismatch. I am no expert on German Uniforms (or anything else for that matter) but surely there is scope for other troops. Behind British front line troops there were a myriad of units from various regiments and I would have thought the German Army would have been no different. That said, if the photo purports to be taken immediately after capture and Wynne's account is accurate, then in theory there can only really be four contenders for the Regiments. Good luck with your quest.

MG

[shippingsteel]

Thank you Martin for adding that excellent information. It does seem to be very specific as to the units guarding immediately after the battle. Those 3 Infanterie-Regts are all IV.Armee Korps.

And as you say the other regiment is the odd one out. Possibly a case of mistaken identity, as the 3. Garde-Regt. zu Fuß was in the 1st Garde Division of the Garde Korps in the 2nd Armee.

They may have possibly mistook the Jäger-Batl.Nr.3 as a Garde unit.? As this Jaeger unit was attached to the III.Armee Korps which did take part in the battle. These are all Prussian units.

Appreciate your help and the quotes you added were certainly of interest.

Cheers, S>S

[Guest]

Thank you Martin for adding that excellent information. It does seem to be very specific as to the units guarding immediately after the battle. Those 3 Infanterie-Regts are all IV.Armee Korps.

And as you say the other regiment is the odd one out. Possibly a case of mistaken identity, as the 3. Garde-Regt. zu Fuß was in the 1st Garde Division of the Garde Korps in the 2nd Armee.

They may have possibly mistook the Jäger-Batl.Nr.3 as a Garde unit.? As this Jaeger unit was attached to the III.Armee Korps which did take part in the battle. These are all Prussian units.

Appreciate your help and the quotes you added were certainly of interest.

Cheers, S>S

There are three chances for transcription error. Wynnes original, Wynnes transcription for Bond and Bond's transcription for Atkinson. Plenty of scope for error. (I double checked my transcription of Bond's letter). MG

[Muerrisch]

One wonders [from a position of sublime ignorance] how easy it was to recognise German infantry units. And did he recognise them and then misremember? Easy to do under undoubted stress, post battle.

[shippingsteel]

The various regiments would all have had their identifying number clearly shown on the shoulder boards, so it would not be that difficult too ascertain which regiment.

As to 'type' of regiment, that would depend on the level of knowledge of the person involved. This probably explains the misunderstanding of the '3rd' unit in this case.

If someone said after the event that it was a number 3 on the shoulderboards, then that would normally mean it was a Garde Regiment (unless it's a Batallion number)

Cheers, S>S

[Guest]

Shipping Steel - some more gold-dust... this time from the pen of Wynne and Atkinson in further correspondence answering specific questions from Atkinson relayed by Lt Col Bond.

1. Atkinson's question to Lt Col Bond in a handwritten letter:

"Wynne's identification of the units against you are most useful but we are surprised to find the 3rd Guards among them because the Corps that Regiment belongs to was miles away fighting the French who had retired to Charleroi. Perhaps they were a machine gun detachment? I wonder if he remembers if there were very many of them?

So it would seem that C T Atkinson had exactly the same question as you in 1918 when he was corresponding with Bond.

2. Here is Wynne's response:

" The 3rd Guards, or what I saw of them arrived just after we had been taken and a certain number of them were detailed to look after us at the Farm at the cross-roads (Pont des 4 Vaux on the sketch) and that many were among the escort that took us (about 200 KOYLI) into Le Cateau Village. At Mr Seydoux's [sp?] house where the Officers were unified for a week a detachment (about fifteen I should say) of them took their turn with detachments of two other regiments 26th and 72nd I think) in parading us. I don't think they were an MG detachment though cannot say for certain."

So even when quizzed he still maintains they were the 3rd Guards Regt. The only words difficult to decipher are the Name of the individual who owned the house. The Farm is still there and can be clearly seen on modern maps see here on geoportail.

All this correspondence and some very long accounts are in the 2nd Bn KOYLI War Diary which can be downloaded from the National Archives ref WO 95/1558/1 for £3.30. I suspect there will be correspondence relating to this in the CAB files at the National Archives. I get to TNA about once a month so if I find anything on thsi I will post on this thread.

Bon chance.

MG

Edit. Personally I think there is more than a good chance that his recollection is wrong. He was writing nearly four years after the events.

Modern psychologists have move the study of memory and recall rather some way since 1918 when this correspondence was happening. Memory, recall and the relaying of past events is a very slippery subject and there have been dozens of very careful studies in the 1970s and 1980s effectively demonstrating just how unreliable memories are, particularly when under stress. With the advent of CCTV we have the ability to compare witness accounts with video recordings of, for example, crimes. The gaps between eyewitness recall and CCTV recordings are so large that many lawyers now believe we are not far from the time when eyewitness accounts in courts will carry little weight. I have researched this are a lot* as I am interested in the diaries, when they were written and how soon after the events they were written. Having transcribed the whole of the BEF's diaries for 1914 I can say with confidence that there are glaring discrepancies between many accounts. Reading the correspondence files with the Authors of the OHs is revealing. Atkinson's correspondence in the KOYLI file is a very typical example where his is trying to unpick a large number of slightly conflicting accounts. Confabulation is also a very big risk.

* read anything by Kahneman and Tversky.